YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!!
Oct 17 '00 (Updated Apr 14 '02)
The Bottom Line When it comes to PC's, "conventional wisdom" is everywhere. Unfortunately, a lot of it is 100% false, and this article explains why.
When buying a new PC, the first thing you need to ask is what you want to use the PC for? Of course, whatever you buy, as soon as you bring the PC home it will already be obsolete. That's why you should buy the most powerful computer you can afford. It will save you money in the long run. Why save a few dollars now when you'll need to spend more to upgrade in the future? Besides, adding speed to an older machine often costs almost as much as a new computer.
First of all, the CPU. The CPU is like the "brain" of the computer. Buy the most powerful CPU you can afford. As time passes one of the hardest and most expensive things to upgrade is the CPU. Also, make sure you buy Intel. Why buy a chip that software was not designed for? Why buy a Volkswagen when you can have a Porsche?
When it comes to RAM, you can never have too much RAM. The more the better! Unless you're using Windows 95. Windows 95 can only use 64 megs of RAM.
When it comes to hard drives, bigger is better! The hard drive is like the "brain" of the computer. For the other components, make sure you buy brand name parts. You want to get the best bang for your buck! Remember that a computer is only as fast as its weakest component.
Don't buy name-brand PC's. They use proprietary components, which means that if the part breaks, you have to buy it from them and pay ten times as much! It also means you can't upgrade your parts unless you buy from them. Also don't buy a computer with integrated video, since you can't upgrade that either.
And finally, you get what you pay for!
At this point, I hope you had your mouse poised over the "Not Recommended" button, ready to banish the above review into Epinions purgatory so nobody would have to lay eyes on it ever again. Even if you actually did NR the above drivel before reaching this point, I could even forgive that (I hope that's why this review has garnered 3 NR's already!) And most of all, I hope you realized that just about everything said above is exactly what one should NOT do when buying a PC, or is at least a gross oversimplification that could be very misleading, especially to a "beginner" PC user.
But how many times have we all heard just about every one of the lines above? Now admittedly these "snippets of conventional wisdom", as I like to call them, are sometimes useful in the proper context, or even when used as intentional hyperbole, but often they just serve to oversimplify or to mislead.
So what's wrong with the "review" I've written above?
"whatever you buy, as soon as you bring the PC home, it's already obsolete"
A case of the aforementioned "intentional hyperbole"? Sometimes, sure. But it's amazing how often the word "obsolete" is completely misused.
For example, I've even seen a review of a top-of-the-line PC which not only called it "obsolete", but even said that the next model in the series(which will likely be faster than any PC available) will also be obsolete.
I fail to see how the fastest PC available could be considered "obsolete". For something to be "obsolete" it must be outdated technology that is incapable of running current software. It must be, essentially, "useless", yet if anything this system was the opposite of "obsolete".
Yet I still hear all the time that "whatever you have, it's already obsolete" or "your computer will be obsolete in 6 months"... That may have been true back in the Stone Age days of the 386, but even PC's from four years ago are still perfectly capable of web browsing and other basic tasks. And until the proliferation of high-speed internet access finally occurs, with streaming video and online multimedia everywhere, even such relatively ancient PC's like my brother-in-law's K6-2 400 are still perfectly fine for most basic tasks.
"That's why you should buy the most powerful computer you can afford. It will save you money in the long run. Why buy save a few dollars now when you'll need to spend more to upgrade in the future?"
For a thorough debunking of this oft-cited philosophy, see my article on "Buying a Computer For $1500-2000" located at: http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-6716-2E7F281A-39A1F880-prod5
"First of all, the CPU. The CPU is like the "brain" of the computer."
How many times have we all heard this one? Sure it provides a nice convenient mental image of what a CPU does, but it also is a gross oversimplification of both CPU's and brains. Think for a second what the human brain has to do. It has to process data and make decisions, like a CPU. But it also has to store short term memories (RAM), really short term memories (L2 cache), and long term memories (hard drive). It has to process visual data and convert it into a form that humans can understand (video card), and it has to do the same for audio data (sound card). Let's face it, if you really want to use the "brain" analogy, comparing the brain to anything but the entire COMPUTER is a bad analogy at best.
"As time passes one of the hardest and most expensive things to upgrade is the CPU."
I've been hearing this a lot lately, and I have yet to hear any explanation why. Has anyone else noticed this? If somebody can explain, please fill me in. Of all the maddening upgrades that one can undertake (motherboard, DVD decoder, sometimes HD and video card), the CPU is far from the most difficult. For socket CPU's, you just pop off the latch, lift the lever, pick up the chip and drop in the new one, press the lever, and replace the latch. Some of those latches can be pretty stubborn, but hardly enough to qualify CPU's as the "hardest upgrade".
In some slot-CPU systems, it can be as simple as plugging in a Nintendo game (ex. early Pentium II's that had nothing to hold them in whatsoever). At worst, it can sometimes require a BIOS upgrade or changing a few jumpers, although with today's jumperless motherboards even that is often unnecessary.
As for the CPU's being the "most expensive" upgrade, CPU's were the most expensive part in a PC for many years back in the "Intel Only" days, but for at least this last year they have not necessarily been any more expensive than other components (ex. hard drive, motherboard, graphics card). Personally, I've never spent more than $100 on any of my three CPU upgrades, which would place make CPU's my 3rd most expensive upgrade (next to hard drives and graphics cards).
Of course, that's not even the worst problem with the "CPU upgrades are the most expensive" concept. The problem is that the idea is misleading at best, and flat-out manipulative at worst--basically the kind of sales pitch a PC salesperson would try to give you while trying to convince you to buy a $500 CPU, when a $150 one is more than enough.
"Also, make sure you buy Intel. Why buy a chip that software was not designed for? Why buy a Volkswagen when you can have a Porsche?"
This may have had some foundation in reality two or three years ago, but it's a pretty obsolete concept these days. Ever since the release of the AMD Athlon, whether you go with an Intel or AMD CPU, the differences are neglibible in terms of the end-user experience. Only by running benchmarks would you ever notice the difference, with AMD winning some, and Intel winning some. Overall they're pretty even, performance wise.
Even in terms of reliability, heat output, compatibility, etc. the two are pretty evenly matched (at least when comparing apples-to-apples, i.e. systems that were each built with comparable components). The truth is, Intel and AMD basically "leap frog" the other every two months or so. So whoever is currently in the lead is will usually only be there until their rival's next product release.
Where Intel and AMD they really differ is in price; as of today (April 15, 2002) you can buy an Athlon XP 2100 for about $230, or a Pentium IV 2200 for about $490. Performance-wise, each chip is faster in some ways and slower in others. Again, they are really quite evenly matched performance-wise. Only one of them is twice as expensive as the other.
"When it comes to RAM, the more the better."
For reasons why "more is better" doesn't necessarily apply to RAM, as well as a guide to determining (and optimizing) your RAM needs, see my article on "How To Add Memory" located at: http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-4E4F-20DE767B-39ECDEBF-prod4
Unless you're using Windows 95. Windows 95 can only use 64 megs of RAM.
Many people still believe this, but the truth is, many motherboards from the Pentium days could only cache 64 megs of RAM, so having more than 64 megs would slow the entire computer down. Incidentally, Windows 95 (which can actually handle at least 512 megs of RAM) was the operating system on 99% of these PC's, so Windows 95 ended up being "guilty by association" and receiving the blame ;-).
"For the other components, make sure you buy brand name parts."
This is true to an extent, but I think "buying brand name" is over-rated. With the rapid pace of the computer hardware industry, companies come and go, and rise and fall, seemingly every week. It's not like the clothing world where it's pretty clear if it's brand name, or if it's not. Consider that Diamond, Aureal, 3dfx, S3, Hercules, Number 9, and Cirrus Logic have all some time been the dominant leaders in their fields, and you couldn't have gone wrong with any one of these "brand name" companies. Today each one has either fallen behind severely or just dropped off the face of the earth.
On the other hand, are companies such as Visiontek, Elsa, Realmagic, Klipsch, or Plextor "name-brand"? Most people have probably never heard of these companies, but today all are at or near the head-of-the-pack in their respective fields. Now don't get me wrong; buying products from companies with a reputation for quality is certainly a good practice, but there's far more to it than "name recognition" alone.
"Remember that a computer is only as fast as its weakest component."
This is also a topic addressed in my "Buying a Computer For $1500-2000" article; here's the URL again: http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-6716-2E7F281A-39A1F880-prod5
"Don't buy name-brand PC's because they use proprietary components. That means, if the part breaks, you have to buy it from them and pay ten times as much! It also means you can't upgrade your parts unless you buy from them."
This is something I hear all the time, but it's really based on a misunderstanding of what "proprietary" and "integrated" parts are and how they work. Proprietary parts are essentially customized components produced for PC manufacturers. For example, Gateway has been known to use motherboards that are not available on the open market, and Dell sometimes uses graphics cards that are slightly different from those available in stores. And yes, it is true that if such a component breaks after the warranty period, buying it from the manufacturer will cost more than comparable products cost.
But what many people don't realize is that you're free to buy "off the shelf", standard components to replace the dead part, even if the part you're replacing was proprietary. There's no conspiracy here. If my Compaq came with a proprietary sound card and that sound card dies, I am perfectly free to replace it with a $30 Soundblaster Live instead. Only if for some bizarre reason I wanted to replace it with that SAME card would it cost some exorbitant price from the PC manufacturer.
Of course, as noted by cnelzie and gr8ful there are exceptions where proprietary compenents are truly not upgradeable, especially proprietary cases and motherboards where they do not conform to industry standard specs (e.g. dimensions). With such a system, "upgrading" either one would essentially entail buying a whole new system. But generally speaking, when it comes to "proprietary parts" (e.g. sound cards, video cards, network cards, hard drives) whether the component is proprietary or not has little effect on system upgradeability.
It's a similar situation for integrated parts. You might be limited in your upgrade options, but if you have a modem/sound-card combo card for example, you don't necessarily have to buy a modem and a sound card to upgrade. Simply buy a new modem and either 1) disable the combo card's modem, or 2) have two modems in your system, and use the new one. Same thing for "video cards" that are integrated onto the motherboard; simply disable the onboard video chip and install a new PCI video card. It's not ideal, and it's not always going to work flawlessly, but it's not impossible either. Newer systems with integrated video even have AGP slots, and are designed for easy upgradeability.
I agree with most people that integrated components are usually low-quality, and that they may have limited upgradeability, but for people who already have a PC with integrated components, it may be much more upgradeable than they think.
Conclusion
My main point with this article is, please don't just accept everything you hear because it sounds convincing, or because it's "what everyone says". With just a basic understanding of computers and some common sense, you'll be amazed at how much it can help with your computer buying decisions. The "catch phrase of the day" may sound compelling, but it's not going to help much compared to a good dose of skepticism and rational decision-making.
Thanks for reading,
-vicwang
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
vicwang
|
|
Member: Vic Wang
Location: Texas
Reviews written: 45
Trusted by: 216 members
About Me:
Systems Analyst and all-around computer guru who's always keeping up with the latest technology.
|
|
|
© 1999-2008 Shopping.com, Inc.